Poly on the Radio

[miss_s_b]

Today's Beyond Belief is talking about poly relationships, and the interview with the poly guy was quite interesting. He didn't make enough of communication for my liking, but he did ok. Unfortunately, they are having a post match discussion and the monogamous Christian guy is making me want to scream and throw things at the radio with his level of Not Getting It. He is going on about how broken promises hurt people and things, and ignoring the fact that in a poly relationship you don't make promises of monogamy by definition. The wanker. There's a very reasonable woman called Lisa who is cheering me up, though.

Anyway, this brings me to a poll:

Poll #2290

Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: Just the Poll Creator, participants: 32

Is it possible for a person to love more than one person deeply enough to want to spend the rest of their life with them (whether or not you personally could do it)?

Yes
28 (87.5%)

No
0 (0.0%)

Maybe/Don't Know
4 (12.5%)

Marriage should be

Between one man and one woman, for life.
0 (0.0%)

Between any two (previously uncommitted or divorced) people who want to commit to each other, for life
3 (11.1%)

Between any number of people who want to commit to each other, for life
6 (22.2%)

Between one man and one woman, for as long as it lasts
0 (0.0%)

Between any two (previously uncommitted or divorced) people who want to commit to each other, for as long as it lasts
0 (0.0%)

Between any number of people who want to commit to each other, for as long as it lasts.
18 (66.7%)

The state should

Legislate on Marriage, because what happens in people's private relationships affects all of society
4 (13.3%)

Butt out of relationships between consenting adults; as long as there is no coercion, it's nobody's business but the participants.
26 (86.7%)

This poll is faulty!

It should have more ticky boxes
14 (56.0%)

You've worded the questions all wrong!
8 (32.0%)

I can't see how other people have voted and I want to be nosey!
8 (32.0%)

Something else which I will detail at great, mansplanatory length in the comments
3 (12.0%)

---

My February Sponsor is

To view this post with minimal formatting, click here. To view this post in your own Dreamwidth style, click here.

Comments

[wildeabandon]

I couldn't really answer the second question as it stands. I dislike the conflation of "a religious or social ceremony in which commitment is expressed" and "a legal contract for the sharing of various rights and responsibilities".

I think people should be able to call the former marriage if they want to and define it pretty much however they like, as long as all the participants agree on the definition.

I think it would be better if the latter had a different name, and in theory I think it should be open to any number of people who want to commit to one another, but in practice the legislation for that will be an absolute nightmare, and I don't think that writing it should be a particularly high priority.

[davegodfrey]

Absolutely. I have no problem with the idea of anyone, regardless of gender, number, sexual preference or even blood relations entering into a civil partnership of some form. Purely because I see it as a business transaction. "Marriage" should basically be a legal contract. If people want to dress it up in a ceremony to mark the occasion then that's fine. If a group of flatmates want to get married because that makes organising bills and paying the rent easier then that's fine by me too.

Perhaps there needs to be some kind of "Civil Cohabitation Partnership". Something to help out people like the sisters who wanted to avoid a double dose of inheritance tax because they'd lived together all their life. (Perhaps in that case some kind of deferred payment would be a better solution.)

[el_staplador]

Yes, this.